• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Palin "seriously interested" in running

SkinsNDeacs said:
"Moderates" were not going to vote for McCain when he was running against Obama. Like I said, he was a lighting bolt and he was going to capture the awe of the so called moderates. He had no chance to win but the only hope he had was to super charge the base (a base that was less than enthusiastic about him) and Palin helped in that regard.
Click to expand...

This probably says a lot more about the GOP base than Palin or McCain if this is to be believed.
 
Flipped through several political shows today and there was more coverage of Trump than Palin in Iowa. Most notable was Fox News Sunday. Not only did they not show a single clip of Palin, but they didn't even mention her appearance at all. Since Fox has forced everybody off the air who's running for President they clearly don't take her "candidacy" seriously at all.

I'd love to see Sarah run for the pure comedy value and it would finally hasten her disappearance, but seems like 'Pubs really don't want her to run at all. If she does get in, she'll get attacked by fellow social conservatives since that's the most crowded part of the field. Still doubt Palin runs, but if she gets trashed too much by the GOP a third party run would be their worst nightmare. She wouldn't win any states, but a splintered vote on the right moves the Dem electoral college floor from 242 to well above 300.
 
McCain could have selected Jesus Christ and he would have lost. Plain, after she got exposed as an ignorant twit, sure didn't help the cause though.
 
bobknightfan said:
Exactly. There is no legitimate argument to be made that "moderates were always going to vote for Obama in 2008". Moderates ended up voting for Obama because the GOP rightwing base pulled McCain so far to the right that they were left with no other choice. The Republican Party has reached the point where it is not giving moderates any reason to vote for its candidates. And, contrary to what these rightwing fanatics try to preach, most of these Democratic candidates are not wild liberals. Anyone who thinks that Bill or Hillary Clinton are wild liberals needs to have his head examined.

The problem is that over the years the rightwing nuts like those on talk radio have successfully moved the demarcation line between liberals & conservatives from the 50-yard line down to around the conservatives' 10-yard line. If you are only 80% conservative, those people now classify you as a liberal. It's laughable that these same people constantly profess their love for Ronald Reagan....when Reagan supported some of the same policies that they are now condemning other Republican candidates for supporting. There is no doubt in my mind that if Reagan were an office holder today, these people would run a primary candidate against him because he wasn't a "true conservative".
Click to expand...

McCain and Romney were right wingers? They were pretty much the most liberal pubs out there in those two cycles (except for maybe Huntsman?) and they were the pick of the establishment. Did they cater to the right? Sure, but I think most people would tell you that neither of these guys were believers. They were accepted.

I think we've seen the end of the hard right influence as witnessed by a much more moderate set of senatorial candidates this past year versus in the previous elections, though the house is a different story altogether due to district maps. The dems are doing a great of job of painting pubs as whack jobs…much like how the pubs made liberal a 4 letter word in the 80s.

I fully expect the Republicans will once again nominate the most "moderate" like Jeb over any of the crazies out there. Granted Bush may not be moderate by some people's definition but he's a lot more centrist than Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Palin, etc.
 
CHDeac said:
McCain and Romney were right wingers? They were pretty much the most liberal pubs out there in those two cycles (except for maybe Huntsman?) and they were the pick of the establishment. Did they cater to the right? Sure, but I think most people would tell you that neither of these guys were believers. They were accepted.

I think we've seen the end of the hard right influence as witnessed by a much more moderate set of senatorial candidates this past year versus in the previous elections, though the house is a different story altogether due to district maps. The dems are doing a great of job of painting pubs as whack jobs…much like how the pubs made liberal a 4 letter word in the 80s.

I fully expect the Republicans will once again nominate the most "moderate" like Jeb over any of the crazies out there. Granted Bush may not be moderate by some people's definition but he's a lot more centrist than Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Palin, etc.
Click to expand...

True. Of course, Castro is a bit more moderate that Mao and Stalin. Doesn't make him any less of a dictator, though.
 
CHDeac said:
I think we've seen the end of the hard right influence as witnessed by a much more moderate set of senatorial candidates this past year versus in the previous elections, though the house is a different story altogether due to district maps. The dems are doing a great of job of painting pubs as whack jobs…much like how the pubs made liberal a 4 letter word in the 80s.

I fully expect the Republicans will once again nominate the most "moderate" like Jeb over any of the crazies out there. Granted Bush may not be moderate by some people's definition but he's a lot more centrist than Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Palin, etc.
Click to expand...

Demographics and electoral college challenges aside, GOP should have a reasonable shot in 2016 if they select a candidate who can appeal to the middle. Boehner's "leadership" and the House screw them every time. There was no excuse for 40+ Obamacare repeal votes since it was never going to come up for a vote in the Senate and a competent junior high school student could figure that out.

The abortion vote in the House this week was ridiculous. Why make a that a priority in the first month of a new Congress when it would be filibustered in the Senate or vetoed by Obama? As an added bonus, the rape terminology was so murky that even GOP women refused to vote for it. Put together centrist legislation with broad appeal rather than a showy ideological bill that has no chance of becoming law.

Haven't heard much about Boehner's "lawsuit" against Obama lately. Hillary's damaged goods and should be very beatable, but any centrist 2016 candidate will be hobbled by the nutty GOP base and Boehner's inability to stop them from wasting everyone's time with pointless votes that have no chance of becoming law, let alone finding broad bipartisan support and approval.
 
Perhaps I could have understood the Obamacare repeal votes if they were only taken every time a new GOP member was added via special election, but that didn't happen more than 40 times. If Boehner was going to get a primary challenge because he only allowed 40 repeal votes instead of 70 repeal votes, he has exactly the job he deserves.

Outside of a court ruling, there won't be a repeal before 2017 and that will only happen with a 'Pub President and control of both houses of Congress. If the GOP base can't or refuses to understand that, that's on them. If GOP pols are too scared to make that clear, that's on them.

At this point, it's kinda like marriage equality. Most moderate 'Pubs know it's a done deal and would rather have the courts make the final decision than spend the 2016 election talking about marginalizing gays and alienating young voters again. Same reason the screwed up language about rape so early in a new congressional term was such a clusterfuck. Don't see how 2016 GOP wannabes can run on Obamacare repeal and not offer an alternative. Uninsured using emergency rooms for minor care was never an ideal situation. If you don't believe in government healthcare, you can't offer and alternative and still appease your base.
 
Many of the 7 million (or 9 million) were also insured prior to 1.1.14 though uninsured rates, Medicaid expansion aside, are dropping. Thats a good thing.

But the ACA does face a HUGE threat in Burwell vs. King. Im SHOCKED its made it this far but if SCOTUS makes state run exchanges not subsidy eligible, watch out. Ive seen estimates that 70% of the ACA membership would drop coverage. This would be the death knell...
 
DeaconSig said:
True. Of course, Castro is a bit more moderate that Mao and Stalin. Doesn't make him any less of a dictator, though.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to compare Castro, Mao and Stalin to Republican leaders? Why not go whole hog and throw Hitler in there too. Then you can be absolutely ridiculous, not just completely.
 
sailordeac said:
Are you trying to compare Castro, Mao and Stalin to Republican leaders? Why not go whole hog and throw Hitler in there too. Then you can be absolutely ridiculous, not just completely.
Click to expand...

I wish this wasn't. You can't make simple analogies on this board. :nosat
 
sailordeac said:
Are you trying to compare Castro, Mao and Stalin to Republican leaders? Why not go whole hog and throw Hitler in there too. Then you can be absolutely ridiculous, not just completely.
Click to expand...

I really don't think this is what he meant. I do think that he's saying that just because someone is not an evil fascist doesn't exactly make them a moderate. Bush's "moderateness" shouldn't be determined in relation to his peers, but rather on the basis of his politics.
 
Strickland33 said:
I really don't think this is what he meant. I do think that he's saying that just because someone is not an evil fascist doesn't exactly make them a moderate. Bush's "moderateness" shouldn't be determined in relation to his peers, but rather on the basis of his politics.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old, you are the best of the worst. Still a pretty inaccurate analogy. Actually, just a bad one…
 
Last edited:
CHDeac said:
Ah, the old, you are the best of the worst. Still a pretty inaccurate analogy. Actually, just a bad one…
Click to expand...

It's not a bad analogy in and of itself. Nobody is comparing Jeb to Fidel (or the rest of the field to some of the 20th century's more notorious fascist dictators).

Semantic drift aside, moderate voters recognize moderate politics. Running a guy without moderate politics as a moderate is not going to work just because political strategists want it to work. McCain was a moderate for a long time. He did not run for president as a moderate.
 
Last edited:
I guess thats where I disagree. I think mccain is a moderate and just used more conservative language. I think he was pissed he didn't run the campaign he wanted to. We will never know but I suspect he'd govern as a moderate. But alas, we will never know.

BTW, I do realize the analogy wasn't comparing anyone to Castro or others.
 
CHDeac said:
I guess thats where I disagree. I think mccain is a moderate and just used more conservative language. I think he was pissed he didn't run the campaign he wanted to. We will never know but I suspect he'd govern as a moderate. But alas, we will never know.

BTW, I do realize the analogy wasn't comparing anyone to Castro or others.
Click to expand...

Never fear, looks like Miss Lindsey Grahamnesty will toss her hat in the ring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top